Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number 17780 Attorney(S) Messrs. Roberts, Jennings, Thomas Lumpkin, of Co lumbia, and Henry L. Lake, of St. Matthews, for Appellant, cite: As to an electrical utility not being excused from the requirement of obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity before extending its lines into a territory already served by another power supplier merely because the other power supplier is an electric cooperative: 219 S.C. 214, 65 S.E.2d 781; 234 Ala. 396, 174 So. 866; 229 S.C. 155, 92 S.E.2d 171; 20 F. Supp. 863; 215 S.C. 195, 54 S.E.2d 777. As to the power of a municipality to operate an electrical plant for furnishing lights to private residences and businesses not existing in this state until the Constitution of 1895 was adopted: 91 S.C. 248, 74 S.E. 496. Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, and Irvine F. Belser, Assistant Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent, South Carolina Public Service Commission, cite: As to the Public Service Commission having no authority to grant cease and desist orders in favor of an electric cooperative against a regulated electrical utility: 73 C.J.S. 992, Public Utilities, Sec. 2; (N.M.) 348 P.2d 88; 78 Idaho 150, 299 P.2d 484; 4 Utah 2d 252, 292 P.2d 511; 98 Utah 466, 100 P.2d 571, 132 A.L.R. 1490; 231 S.C. 341, 97 S.E.2d 79; 215 S.C. 193, 54 S.E.2d 777. As to the Public Service Commission having no authority to limit the constitutional right of City of Orangeburg to operate its electrical utility system: 113 S.E.2d 534; 110 S.C. 36, 96 S.E. 545; 87 S.C. 566, 70 S.E. 296. Messrs. Sims Sims, of Orangeburg, for Respondent, City of Orangeburg, cite: As to the Public Service Commission being without the power or the authority to restrict the right of the City of Orangeburg to operate an electric utility or to furnish power to individuals, firms and private corporations for a reasonable compensation, both inside and outside of the City Limits: 87 S.C. 566, 70 S.E. 296; (S.C.) 113 S.E.2d 534. As to Cooperatives not being given an exclusive or monopolistic right to supply electricity in any particular area: 202 S.C. 207, 24 S.E.2d 353, 215 S.C. 193, 54 S.E.2d 777. Messrs. Roberts, Jennings, Thomas Lumpkin, of Columbia, and Henry L. Lake, of St. Matthews, for Appellant, in Reply, cite: As to electric cooperatives being, in fact, public utilities and may not arbitrarily refuse service to a member, nor membership to a qualified applicant: 219 S.C. 214, 65 S.E.2d 781; 226 S.C. 442; 85 S.E.2d 716. Judges PER CURIAM. See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Appellant, v. John J. SNOW, Chairman,Clyde F. Boland, Hugh C. Brown, J. Louis Moss, Charles A. Rice, WinchesterSmith, and Edward Wimberly, indi May 11, 1961. PER CURIAM. The Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc., a nonprofit membership corporation formed under the Rural Electric Cooperative Act, Sections 12-1001 to 12-1083, inclusive, of the 1952 Code, petitioned the South Carolina Public Service Commission for an order requiring the City of Orangeburg to cease and desist from extending its electrical utility operations into an area outside of the city limits which the Cooperative claimed was already occupied and served by it. The City of Orangeburg timely objected to the jurisdiction of the Commission upon the grounds (1) that the Commission was without power to regulate or restrict its electrical utility operations, and (2) that under the Electrical Utilities Act, Sections 24-1 to 24-176, inclusive, of the 1952 Code, the Cooperative had no standing to ask for a cease and desist order. Both grounds were sustained by the Commission and the proceeding dismissed. Thereafter the Cooperative brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County to set aside the order of the Commission. The Circuit Judge affirmed the Commission's order upon both jurisdictional grounds. The Cooperative has appealed. We find it unnecessary to determine whether the Commission is empowered to restrict or regulate the electrical utility operations of municipalities outside of their corporate limits. In Black River Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, S.C. 120 S.E.2d 6, we held that an electric cooperative had no standing to seek a cease and desist order under the Electrical Utilities Act. Upon this ground, the order of the Circuit Judge is affirmed and the proceedings dismissed.